Aixtreme89

I dont get it. The new Suzuki GSX-R 1000 is (1 liter, or 60 cubic inches) and it produces 178hp... Isnt that insane! It makes 164 rear wheel horsepower! The yamaha, kawasaki, and Honda, all make between 160-180hp to the crank from a 1 liter!! Whats going on with auto makers? These engines are naturally asperated have around 12.5 compression and running on 91 octane. And they rev up to around 12,000 RPM even 13,500 RPM. Why cant we have a automotive engine make the same kind of power to displacement. Imagine a 4.6 liter making 818.8 horsepower!!! Naturally asperated and running on premium fuel and that revs up to 12 grand!! Its also not like thes bikes are that expensive there around $11,000. I dont know of any automaker that can touch those figures....... Any suggestions?

Aixtreme89

Oh yeah heres a link.

http://www.sportbikes.com/wwwthreads...?Number=827221

Heres the Yamaha R1 (180 horsepower!)

http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products...ha_yzf-r1.aspx

grimwolf

they probly could but they are bikes dude...two wheels no weight means you can haul *** with a lil motor....cars on the other hand are required to meet specific safety guidlines, now picture driveing a stock car around they use in nascar, around as a daily driver..you think gas is expencive now? and the price of the car would more then likely dubble...

Aixtreme89

The weight to power ratio is true. But that has nothing to do with the internal combustion engine. Stock cars have a 6 liter or more. Im not sure and make around 700hp right? thats still only around 100hp per liter. vs. 180hp to 1 liter. There both engines. Im not talking about when they are used for. Why cant an automotive engine produce those kind of horsepower to displacement ratio?

Casper98GT

Dude, domestic guys dont talk about Hp per liter. Thats the excuse imports use. remember!

Aixtreme89

alright how about hp per cubic inch?? Figures dont lie.

MasonsTT

In this casa, size matters!

The small size of a Bike motor is easy to keep strong. Like anything, the bigger it is that harder it is to keep strong and tight.
The size of a Auto Engine, can be made very strong, but takes lots of money to do it. And the auto makers can't keep the prices down if they go that route.

Then again, if you've got the money, you can probably get it done. But not many have the money and want to throw it away over and over until they get it right.

But the 1st cars that come to mind are the F1 cars. High reving, high HP cars, that puch it to the limit. Other cars that are TT'd can make some huge numbers also per inch, or litre. The Viper TT in Hot Rod Magazine is pushing 1500+rwhp/tq, although it's not reving to 11k---then again, it doesn't need too.

Then again, I do NOT like the feeling of a high reving engine. Give me some displacement, lots of power and get the power down quickly!!

281GT

While it is true that the hp per iter on those tiny engine is impressive you need to consider how the numbers are published. Sure these engine make lots of hp but only at very high rmps. 99 miles of a 100 that you drive on the street will be at something a lot lower that where these engine make maximum hp. IF you were to look at the graphs on most of them you would find that below 5500prm they don't have anything. You have to drive it like you hate it to get anything out of it. You also need to consider that most of these engines have very very low torque output. Certainly in a car that is very light and has a good 6 speed trans this is not nearly as much of an issue but becuase you have to push this tiny engine so hard it's bound to decrease the life it it.
Plus it's very easy to get high hp from a small engine. Very little internal friction and low recipricating wieght. All you need to do is make it beathe.
However whe you consider all the facts I don't think the argument of tiny engine with lots of hp is better than a larger engine with lot of torque. It's just different. If you are going to keep the car a while the bigger motor will last longer and just be easier to drive because of the higher torque output. Personally I HATE the sound of a 4 cylinder engine. It sounds a like a tin can full of flies, but certainly I can respect how well they can be made to work. The WRX is a good example. It's fast, reliable and handles inredibly well but I wouldn't own one. I usually keep a car at least 10 years. I tend to damand a lot from my engine. In 10 years I would have to rebuild a WRX 4 times. No thanks. I don't like the looks if it either. It looks like a grocary getter with mail box on the hood and a towel rack on the back. But that's only my opinion.

Aixtreme89

You two had good responses. I also think it has something to do with how cheap labor is in japan. Also I agree that it is easier to keep a smaller engine stronger and with less friction. Yes those F1 and champ car engines are very impressive. Reving very high. But also they make around 800hp out of a twin turbo small block.

The Yamaha R1 isnt to bad with 180hp and 110 ft lbs. of torque still not bad.

Mabye if they made a V-16 thats a 4 liter. They could produce the same kind of power ratio. Keep the bores small and increase the stroke for more torque.

But the RSX type s is also impressive 2 liter 200hp. I wish ford used the same size bore and stroke and compression ratio as them but made it in a v-8 or better yet v-10 form. 400hp 4 liter sounds nice, or a 500 hp v-10 naturally asperated.

Also the Viper motors not that impressive. Sure its big, and its nice thats it a v-10 but at 8.3 liters its almost twice the size as our 4.6 liter motors. And where making 260hp and 302 ftlbs. If we doubled out displacement that would be an 9.2 liter with 520hp and 604ftlbs. hypatheticly.

I also hate the sound of four cylinder cars. But I love the sound of a four cylinder crotch rocket.

I cant deny the beauty and the power, I want one!!

nathansmith50

just kind of an aside point. yes the auto makers could do it. but imagine the accident rates. any idiot kid can get a drivers lisence. you want a 16 year old out there with a 3000 pound 880 horsepower car?